Open Intercepted Terminal

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the interception behavior but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it's destructive or read-only, rate limits, or what happens after opening (e.g., does it return a terminal ID?). For a tool that likely modifies network traffic, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action and immediately specifies the scope. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that intercepts network traffic (a potentially complex/destructive operation), it should provide more context on behavior, side effects, or output expectations to be complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'proxyPort' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., typical port values, implications of port choice). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Open a new terminal window') and the resource/scope ('where all launched processes and Docker containers will have their HTTP(S) traffic intercepted automatically'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'intercept_existing_terminal' by specifying 'new terminal window' and from 'intercept_docker_container' by covering both processes and Docker containers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (when you want to intercept HTTP(S) traffic from processes/Docker containers launched in a new terminal), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'intercept_existing_terminal' or 'intercept_docker_container'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.